You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Rob and Jesse talk with Heatmap senior reporter Jael Holzman.

Donald Trump’s second term has now entered its second month. His administration is doing much to slow down renewables, and everything it can to slow down offshore wind. Jael Holzman is a senior reporter at Heatmap and the author of our newsletter, “The Fight,” about local battles over renewable permitting around the country.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk to Jael about the bleak outlook for offshore wind, the use of presidential authority to impede energy development, and why solar has been spared — so far. Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap’s executive editor.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: It seems like there’s a mix here of, you know, some projects are now facing active legal trouble because they still had major permits to secure and the Trump administration is now denying those permits. But some projects, as you were saying, seemed safe, but now they’re not. They’re worried about getting these kind of iterative findings from the government that you need to conduct any major work in federal waters.
How much of the chill that we’re seeing is about active permitting denials, versus how much of it is developers being like, we don’t want to risk getting a permit denied, or asking for something that would be very normal to get a normal approval in the course of normal business operations, getting it rejected and then just being stuck. And so we’d rather just pause, not ask for anything for four years, and then come back and start asking again?
Jael Holzman: Offshore wind industry executives won’t say this on the record, but they have anonymously told me, in many words, that they view what is happening to them in the federal permitting system as not only a barometer check for where the energy transition is, but even broader, it is a risk, it is a challenge, it is a threat to integrity.
With respect to our federal permitting processes, generally what we’re seeing here is, I’ve had some folks in conservative energy circles compare it to the Keystone XL-ification of the energy sector, where the political party that doesn’t like a particular technology weaponizes the permitting system against one particular sector. Now, obviously, it’s politically advantageous for conservatives to describe it this way, but I actually find it to be very useful because what it means is as the politics becomes more fraught for the party in power around a technology, there’s increasingly a willingness to step beyond the realm of what the permitting system is legally supposed to do. And that’s a danger if it’s weaponized against an entire sector.
You know, Keystone pipeline, that was one project. It was exemplary — there was a lot of fervor around that one project — that is not an entire sector having the thumb put on its scale by political officials to derail it, especially one that had been a decade-plus in the works and is required for the energy grids to remain stable in various parts of our country. You know, what we’re seeing here is federal officials not even being willing to schedule meetings for permitting processes that are legally required under the law.
For example, my reporting indicated that at least one project that was prioritized under a permitting reform law to have at least an idea public and put out there for when they would expect to get all their permits — this was the Blue Point Wind offshore wind proposal off the coast of New England and New Jersey, New York. And what we’re seeing here is essentially the obscuring of even what permitting reform ostensibly was supposed to do, right?
There was this conversation in D.C. before Trump took office that maybe if you couple statutory reforms that streamline the processes that currently exist, and you put some sort of timetable into the statute, and you combine that with some gimmes to the oil and gas people, right, at least you could grease the skids enough to have everyone benefit. But my reporting on what’s happened to offshore wind has truly revealed that in many respects, “all of the above” is really a Lucy-with-the-football moment for many proponents of an energy transition.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Investors are piling into startups that promise to solve hard problems using little energy. But that doesn’t mean the answer is ‘yes.’
Physicists have spent decades trying to apply the laws of quantum mechanics to the physical world in the form of quantum computers, devices that promise to solve some of the hardest problems in biology, chemistry, and materials science at unfathomable speed. Many experts say this technology is finally on the cusp of commercial viability. Physicists and software engineers are understandably excited. But so, too, is another group that might raise eyebrows: climate investors.
Investment in quantum startups rose to $12.6 billion in 2025, six times the prior year’s total, according to McKinsey. The consultancy forecasts that the technology could drive up to $2.7 trillion in economic value by 2035 as it spurs efficiency and revenue gains across sectors. Climate tech venture capitalists understandably want a piece of that pie.
Examples abound. Lowercarbon Capital participated in the quantum startup Oratomic’s gigantic $300 million Series A, announced earlier this month. Just a few months prior, Breakthrough Energy Ventures led quantum pioneer Sygaldry’s $139 million Series A, which also included participation from Singapore-based climate-focused investor Earth Venture Capital. And earlier this year, Planet First Partners led a $200 million later-stage round for quantum company Photonic Inc., now valued at over $2 billion.
They’re hardly the first VCs to argue that the worlds of quantum and climate are closer than they might initially appear. Prelude Ventures has backed Atom Computing since its 2018 seed round, all the way through its $100 million Series C last month, while Berlin-based VC World Fund has supported IQM Quantum Computers — which went public via SPAC about three weeks ago — since 2022. All say that quantum computers will be dramatically more energy efficient than today’s so-called “classical computers,” reducing costs and electricity usage across applications ranging from artificial intelligence workloads and transportation logistics to power grid optimization.
That advantage stems from the fundamental nature of the system’s architecture. The physics is extraordinarily complex, but the basic idea is that unlike a standard computer, which encodes information as zeros and ones, quantum computers rely on units called “qubits.” Rather than representing a single binary value, qubits can “be both a zero and a one, or any state in between at the same time,” Idalia Friedson, Sygaldry’s co-founder, told me.
That mind-bending proposition totally changes the way computers problem-solve. Rather than sequentially testing one possible solution after another, quantum computers can evaluate many possibilities simultaneously, hopefully allowing them to solve challenges such as molecular simulation, materials discovery, and drug design exponentially faster than is currently possible.
This tech won’t replace today’s computers, which experts told me will almost certainly remain more practical for everyday tasks such as browsing the internet, making spreadsheets, and word processing. Rather, the future of computing will likely be a hybrid in which classical computers handle the bulk of the work while quantum computers address specific, complex problems.
For its part, Sygaldry is building quantum-powered AI servers that can plug directly into existing data center infrastructure, combining quantum processors with classical chips in the same machine to expedite both model training and inference. The startup is also unique in its effort to combine multiple types of qubits — yes, there is more than one kind — within the same system, matching each qubit type to the problem it’s best suited to solve.
“You can create a qubit by using photons, which are actually like light particles, by trapping ions, by creating artificial atoms,” Friedson told me, explaining that each type has its pros and cons. “Some are fast, some are less expensive, some are more manufacturable or scalable. But by and large, no single type of qubit meets all of the characteristics needed for commercial high-performance computing.” Thus, Sygaldry is taking a mix-and-match approach, pairing different types of qubits with the AI workloads they’re best adapted to handle, ultimately aiming to extract more from our existing data center infrastructure and curb the AI boom’s runaway energy demands.
But as with all breakthroughs that promise faster, better, cheaper AI, the spectre of Jevon’s paradox looms large. This is the observation that as technologies become more efficient and cheaper, total resource consumption often rises rather than falls as lower costs spur demand.
When I asked BEV’s Christian Garcia, who led the firm’s investment in Sygaldry, about whether he worries that quantum companies could contribute to an uptick in overall AI energy demand, he told me it seemed a little outside his remit. “I almost feel like it’s a question for a philosopher to answer,” he said, explaining that he has no way of knowing what the advanced computing industry will look like decades down the line. Instead, he’s focused on the shorter-term problem companies like Sygaldry purport to solve: Grid bottlenecks are constraining AI growth.
“Even as algorithms get more efficient, and even as GPUs get more efficient, the demand for tokens is outstripping the ability to bring power online,” Garcia explained. “And so we view investing in new computing platforms as a way to solve power challenges in a lot of ways, and I think that’s bread and butter for us.”
Mark Cupta, the Prelude investor who has backed Atom Computing since 2018, expressed a similar sentiment. “Regardless of what [quantum computing] is used for, it will use less energy as a baseline,” he told me. “Could it discover great things? Yes. Could it also break things? Absolutely. We’ve gotten comfortable with that.” Climate-positive applications that particularly excite Cupta include designing novel compounds to better capture carbon dioxide out of the air or industrial smokestacks, discovering more efficient catalysts for the energy intensive Haber-Bosch process used to produce ammonia-based fertilizer, and perfecting the chemistry behind solid-state batteries, which could be safer, longer-lasting, and far more energy dense than standard lithium-ion cells.
But quantum computing could also break many of today’s standard encryption methods, which secure everything from online banking systems and medical records to cryptocurrencies. It could help oil and gas companies with exploration, extraction, and petrochemical processing, helping to make fossil fuel production more efficient and cost competitive with renewables. Or maybe its greatest commercial value lies in, say, helping hedge funds optimize their trading strategies and portfolios — not necessarily a climate-negative application, but a far cry from the breakthroughs many sustainability-focused investors are hoping for.
The technology’s ultimate climate impact will always depend, to some degree, on how and where it’s deployed. Yet when Cupta looks at Prelude’s portfolio of climate tech solutions, he mainly sees the ways that quantum could help them move faster and build superior products. “If you think that the things we’re inventing are going to be better for the world than what came previously, you want to supercharge those things,” he told me.
He’s betting Atom’s platform will prove to be “the most energy-efficient and lowest footprint” approach in the industry. The company builds its qubits from neutral atoms, which have an equal number of protons and electrons and thus no net electrical charge. This system traps them in mid-air using tightly focused laser beams, a setup that allows the atoms to be packed far more densely than many competing designs, which often use micron-scale wires. And because the laser traps are movable, the system can rearrange qubits on the fly to optimize for different tasks.
Neutral atom-based systems are a relative newcomer to the quantum computing landscape, but Cupta believes they have the potential to leapfrog the industry’s dominant architecture: superconducting qubits. Often described as artificial atoms, these qubits are tiny electrical circuits engineered to mimic the quantum behavior of atoms. They underpin the quantum efforts of tech giants like Google and IBM, as well as startups such as Rigetti Computing — founded by Sygaldry’s other co-founder, Chad Rigetti — and IQM Quantum Computers.
But when Cupta was first exploring the idea of a quantum investment, he said nearly everyone he spoke with admitted that if they were “starting from scratch” they wouldn’t choose to work with superconducting qubits. That suggested to him that this approach had become a legacy technology, while Atom Computers’ neutral atoms represented the future. Other investors now appear to be buying that thesis. Last month, the startup announced a $100 million Series C, and is also set to receive $100 million from the U.S. Department of Commerce as part of a $2 billion CHIPS Act investment in quantum computing and manufacturing. For its part, Oratomic — a Lowercarbon portfolio company — is also working to build a neutral atoms-based quantum computer.
Prelude has been wrong about quantum before, as have plenty of other investors. The firm also co-led the Series A and B rounds for the quantum software company Zapata Computing, which went public via SPAC in 2024. The stock quickly collapsed, and within seven months the company had run out of cash and ceased operations. It eventually restructured and reemerged as Zapata Quantum, though its shares are still only worth around $1 on the lightly traded OTCQB market.
There’s also always the possibility that a climate-focused startup could simply reinvent itself, pivoting toward a more promising market opportunity. Consider the case of Crusoe. The AI data center builder and operator now valued at over $10 billion initially pitched itself at the beginning of the decade as a climate tech startup, using natural gas that would have otherwise been flared off to power cryptocurrency mining, thereby reducing emissions. While always an unconventional thesis, sustainability-focused VCs like Lowercarbon, G2 Venture Partners, and MCJ Collective piled in. Since then, the company has greatly expanded its natural gas footprint as it’s pivoted aggressively toward building AI data centers.
All of which is to say, there’s simply no guarantee that a climate tech startup will stay true to its original mission, or that the energy savings and efficiency gains it promises will ultimately materialize. The possibility of a paradoxical outcome is just a part of investing in energy efficiency technologies.
Investors seem to have gotten comfortable with the discomfort. But the public may not have to wait too much longer to see the first signs of what a quantum-powered future could look like. Sygaldry is aiming to “have some meaningful technology by the end of the decade,” Friedson said. “Over the next couple years I expect quantum is going to start reaching these really valuable inflection points that continue to drive adoption.”
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Bertha washed out the majority of monitored sea turtle nests in the western part of the Florida Panhandle • Record rain in West Virginia swelled creeks that toppled bridges in the north central part of the state • In the Pacific, Tropical Depression Kiyapo is barreling toward the northern part of the Philippines’ Luzon island.

China just quietly upped its target for renewable energy consumption, ratcheting up the goal 53% by 2030, rising to 1.8 billion tons of coal equivalent from 1.18 billion tons last year. That’s according to the latest five-year plan for renewables the National Development and Reform Commission published on its website. Wind and solar, paired with energy storage, are expected to provide 20% of electricity during the summer and winter evening peak periods, up from 10% currently, according to Bloomberg. By 2030, Beijing wants 300 gigawatts of peak capacity from renewables. Non-electric utilization of renewables, such as for heavy industry, is projected to rise to 150 million tons of coal equivalent from 60 million in 2025. The People’s Republic is betting on novel technologies to start taking off. By the start of the next decade, China wants to increase solar thermal capacity to 15 gigawatts from just under 2 gigawatts at the end of last year. The government wants marine energy, such as tidal and wave power, to go from virtually nothing today to at least 400 megawatts.
In the meantime, Beijing’s buildout of nuclear reactors continues apace. Per my promise to keep you abreast of all the big milestones, here’s the latest: China General Nuclear just installed the “supermodule” for the CAP1000 — the Chinese version of America’s Westinghouse AP1000 — at its Unit 2 project at the Lufeng Nuclear Power Plant in Guangdong Province. The installation this week of a module that’s too big to be transported by rail or boat and thus needed to be fabricated on site “signifies that the construction of the reactor building” for the new unit “has entered a new phase.”
Meta has quit a top corporate initiative to promote clean energy as the Facebook parent company has built out at least a dozen gas-fired power stations to supply electricity to its data centers over the past year. While rivals such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft remain members of the RE100, a project of the British-headquartered nonprofit the Climate Group that former United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair co-founded, Recharge News reported that Meta had left the initiative. A spokesperson for the company told TechCrunch it was a mutual decision, though Meta declined to comment on the exact reasoning.
The United States currently has a little over 70 gigawatts of capacity to manufacture solar panels each year. Tesla has plans to dramatically increase that number. “We are just going to multiply it [by] an order of magnitude,” Vaibhav Taneja, Tesla’s chief financial officer, said during an earnings call Wednesday night. “We’re going at a very rapid scale.” It was just one of the various investments the electric auto giant is banking on investors to support as billionaire CEO Elon Musk ramps up spending on manufacturing semiconductors and humanoid robots as part of its artificial intelligence buildout, while also tackling an energy source that the scale of China’s factories has largely brought down to a commodified price. The stock plunged nearly 15% on Thursday as CNBC cautioned that investors are increasingly spooked about spending on artificial intelligence. “Yes, this means that we are doing a lot of things all at the same time,” Taneja said. “And that’s why we just have to go as fast as … humanly possible, make things work in the real world.”
Adding to the company’s woes: The U.S. government is now looking to strengthen regulations on car door hands after federal filings linked electric door failures to at least 15 deaths in Tesla vehicles, Bloomberg reported.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The price of Brent crude, the international benchmark for oil, surpassed $100 per barrel for the first time since May amid President Donald Trump’s threats to ramp up the U.S. bombing campaign against Iran and a resurgence of attacks from Yemen’s Tehran-backed Houthi rebels in the Red Sea. West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark, finished out the day of trading at a little over $92 per barrel. Murban crude, out of the United Arab Emirates, soared nearly 20% to more than $107 per barrel. On Thursday, Trump told Axios he was close to a final decision on whether to launch a “massive attack” on Iran, “bigger than ever before.” The threat comes on what the Financial Times clocked as the 12th straight night of U.S. strikes against the Islamic Republic.
A new analysis from the consultancy Wood Mackenzie, meanwhile, showed the limits of Saudi Arabia’s main bypass for the Strait of Hormuz. Riyadh redirected virtually all crude exports through its East-West Pipeline to Yanbu on the Red Sea after Iran closed the narrow waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf at the start of the war in February. Volumes flowing through the pipeline peaked at more than 4 million barrels per day in March. But by June, that flow declined to about 2.4 million barrels per day, a 41% decline. On the whole, crude exports out of the Persian Gulf fell 82% between January and June. That’s likely due to dropping production as the regional industry struggles to find sufficient outlets for its supply. The Red Sea corridor also also “faces a declared Houthi blockade that, if enforced, could reduce global oil supply considerably.”
The U.S. has 4.2 billion short tons of coal reserves in active mines and another 356 billion short tons in untapped deposits, according to an updated U.S. Geological Survey report the Department of the Interior released Thursday. If extracted and burned in a power plant, the coal could supply the nation’s needs for at least 600 years at the current rate of consumption, the agency said. “American Energy Dominance is more important than ever, and so is beautiful, clean coal’s role in the production of electricity needed to fuel our future prosperity,” Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said in a statement. “Thanks to the USGS’s rigorous and independent assessment, we’re better equipped to manage America’s vast public lands responsibly while supporting energy security and economic opportunity.” Of the 34 coal mines on federal land, 14 are located in Wyoming, followed by Colorado with six, North Dakota and Utah with four mines each, and Alabama and Montana with three mines each. But Wyoming's mines contain 87% of the reserves associated with active mines on federal lands. As I told you last month, the Trump administration put up $850 million to support a coal revival. And the Iran War, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote in March, is only fueling more demand for coal.
Last month, I told you that Japan was the other country, besides the United States, bucking the global trend toward more, not less, offshore wind. Here’s a good reminder that, in most cases, such trends are directional, not definitive. The 315-megawatt Oga-Katagami-Akita offshore wind project just received its certification from Japanese regulators, “confirming that the design of its wind power generation facilities complies with” technical standards. It’s a major step toward building the array of 21 Vestas turbines off the coast of Akita Prefecture, per offshoreWIND.biz.
Rob talks with Charm Industrial cofounder Peter Reinhardt about “liquid smoke” and how it can store greenhouse gas at gigaton scale.
Charm Industrial is a climate tech company that takes biomass and converts it into a heavy, carbon-rich oil that can be injected underground, transmuting and storing the greenhouse gas far from the atmosphere. They’re scaling up fast and recently announced a new $20 million debt facility with JP Morgan; the bank also agreed to buy more than 60,000 tons worth of removals from them.
On this episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Peter Reinhardt, the CEO and cofounder of Charm. (He’s also the CEO of the trucking company Revoy, a founder of the autoimmune therapeutics company Antipode, and a board member at the electricity data company Arcadia.) They talk about what makes Charm different, how it is scaling operations as a carbon removal company, and the changing politics of climate change.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: You’ve had a very interesting career of starting in software, exiting a software company, and now working in the world of molecules. And I think there are two ... frankly, I’m gonna simplify things, but I feel like there’s two pathways that bring people into, let’s say, venture-backed climate startups. No. 1 is people worked at SpaceX or Tesla, or No. 2, people worked at a software company and then cared about climate change and got into the molecule space. And so as someone who was at a software company, exited, and now works with CO2 — works with physical things — what has surprised you most about working in molecules, and what have you brought from the land of bits to the land of molecules?
Peter Reinhardt: I think the main thing that i’ve brought is an expectation of pace, and that the pace can be faster, and the main thing that I have encountered that is new is the regulatory and policy environment. It doesn’t really exist in software — like it’s not a surprise that AI is the fastest growing sector in the economy right now. Everything else is regulated to stasis. And so you have an unregulated thing, relatively speaking; it’s growing super fast and creating all kinds of all kinds of good for people. We all use it every day because we get some value out of it. And so that has been hugely eye-opening. And the politics of deployment in hardware — politics of deployment don’t really exist. I mean, maybe they do around AI, but they don’t really exist in the software world. You deploy at your own pace and that’s it.
The politics of deployment in hard tech and climate are very complicated. And I think I went in with a very naive viewpoint, which is that in theory, Democrats are super aligned to climate and super aligned to deployment. In practice, I don’t know. If you look at like — I mean, I wrote a blog post about this, which is like, regulation is doubling the cost. It is impossible for us to get started in California. This is nominally the state that’s the champion of climate today. It’s not leading on renewable energy development. I tried to go there first in terms of deploying carbon removal. God knows the forests in California could use it, right? For the same reason that we’re here in Colorado, we were told it would be like 10 years to get the first injection while permitted.
That’s not what leadership in climate looks like, no matter how you slice it or dice it. It can’t take 10 years to try to deploy a novel technology. I would love to deploy in California. It’s my home state. I live there, and I come out to Colorado once every two weeks to be with most of the team here. But that’s not what leadership looks like. And so again, in theory, there’s a lot of talk. But particularly on the Democrat side, the gap between talk about climate and climate action versus the reality on the ground of actually trying to deploy stuff is massive, and like, deeply, deeply challenging, I would say, to my identity over the last few years. And like very, very discombobulating.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
Charm’s new deal with JP Morgan
The ProPublica story Peter criticized
“Over-Regulation is Doubling the Cost,” by Peter
The Cantwell-Sheehy bipartisan carbon removal bill
Previously on Heatmap: Charm Is Working With the U.S. Forest Service on a Carbon Removal Pilot
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Tandem PV is the leader in perovskite solar technology. We’re building the most efficient and durable perovskite solar panels on the market at our factory in Freemont, California. Learn how we're restoring U.S. leadership for the next era of solar manufacturing at tandempv.com.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow